Proposal - Delegate Incentive Program (DIP)

[raam]

Hi @SEEDGov

To confirm, delegates already enrolled in the first iteration will NOT need to complete the KYC again if v1.5 is approved. They will only need to sign updated agreements with the AF.

Thanks

[SEEDGov]

We’ve posted the proposal on Tally and voting will begin this Thursday.

We would like to thank those who continued providing feedback to ensure the best possible iteration of this proposal.

Also, we want to thank @raam, and based on his confirmation, we have amended our proposal to reflect that

Delegates already enrolled in the first interaction will NOT need to complete the KYC again if v1.5 is approved. They will only need to sign updated agreements with the Arbitrum Foundation.

[Tally_Support]

Voting has started for this proposal!
Vote on Tally: [Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum DAO Delegate Incentive Program

---

I am a bot. Questions? Contact support@tally.xyz

[ocandocrypto]

Just voting FOR here, as I’ve explained my reasoning before and I’m sticking with it.

Also, thank you Raam for confirming that those of us involved since the first iteration won’t have to go through the KYC process again.

Proposal - Delegate Incentive Program (DIP)

When I first read the proposal, I had some concerns about how subjective the scoring system seemed. However, after reviewing the comments and feedback from contributors like 404 DAO, I’ve come to appreciate the maturity behind how this program is being executed. I’ve been involved in the DAO for the past 9 months, participating in the program for about 6 months and receiving incentives for 4 of those. Engaging in discussions, offering honest and transparent feedback, and connecting with other …

Excited for what’s ahead and for the challenges it brings, but also grateful that, based on the feedback, these changes are happening to strengthen long-term participation in the DAO and improve governance.

Proposal - Delegate Incentive Program (DIP)

Key Updates – October 2, 2024 We have incorporated @krst’s feedback by increasing the minimum participation requirement for on-chain votes from 60% to 75% over the past 90 days. Consequently, delegates must now participate in at least 3 out of 4 on-chain votes within the last 90 days to remain eligible for the program. As the DAO expressed a preference for option 2 (v1.5), all references to option 1 (v1.1) have been removed. The tables, framework, and terminology, as well as the related formula…

[0xDonPepe]

@0xDonPepe

I am very glad to see the Delegate Incentive Program being renewed and for it to be implemented over the course of a year. The budget seems reasonable, and the increase in monthly compensation for delegates is totally justified, given that the price of ARB has dropped over 65% YTD. Adding bonus points for participating in governance calls is something I was eager to see in this new version because I’m sure this will encourage active engagement that will translate into better-informed voting. Overall, I am very happy with the proposal and will, of course, be supporting it.

I just voted FOR on Tally, largely for the reasons already mentioned. While I recognize my perspective might be somewhat biased since I’m currently part of this program, I’ve seen firsthand how effective it is at encouraging delegates to engage more actively in DAO discussions. I’m confident this is the right direction and look forward to seeing the program grow with even more participants.

[0x_ultra]

Voting in favor as I already did in previous discussions. This program proved to have a positive impact and I’m sure that this new version will bring even more positive outcomes. You can find my previous rationale here: Proposal - Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) - #89 by 0x_ultra

[0xTALVO.ETH_MTY]

I vote in favor of this new program. I believe that the parameters proposed in the “Delegates Feedback” rubric are fair and will result in helpful feedback, which will ultimately add value to ARB. As a participant in the program, I hope the new phase starts with patience and have good results.

[EzR3aL]

I voted in favour especially for v1.5. A proper DIP is important to keep a DAO alive and secure against governance attacks. Although this isn’t the case currently, its better to be safe than sorry.
Thanks to @seedlatam for tackling this proposal and reading through many comments from different user.

[Ignas]

I’m all for these changes and will try to achieve them in this program:

• Raising the threshold to 75%: I have no idea to raising the threshold to 75% cause I will follow what helps the DAO develop. This change will increase delegate participation and is not too hard to achieve

• Increasing Delegates’ Feedback to 30%: I think It will hold delegates responsible for their participation :), pushing them to check the forum regularly to give qualitative feedback on time. If they don’t, they’ll miss out on important discussions.

• Total Participation to 65%: I agree that many delegates can easily hit the 60% with their tally voting, I think this is a reasonable step.

[jameskbh]

I voted FOR in Tally. The enhancements will create a stronger delegates cohort.

[TodayInDeFi]

We Voted for the proposal on Tally

Rationale

-Rationale remains mostly the same as Snapshot as the updates are supplementing the previous proposal instead of amending it.
-Lifting min threshold of onchain voting participation from 60% to 75% can better filter out the active delegate candidates

[pedrob]

I am voting FOR this proposal on Tally, for the same reasons outlined when the Snapshot vote took place:

@pedrob

The first iteration of the DIP served as a starting point to consolidate the base of high-quality delegates who now contribute their views to the discussions. It’s important to keep the level of these discussions to achieve great long-term results.

In version 1.5, I see significant progress towards encouraging valuable participation. I encourage
@SEEDGov team to experiment as much as possible and be creative in detecting and assigning participation points. Despite the rubric, many situations will arise that don’t fit into the pre-designed structures, and I trust the team’s judgment and fairness in managing the system. I also hope this version’s approval represents a vote of confidence from all delegates in the criteria they choose, accepting that there is a high degree of subjectivity in this iteration. I don’t see a better way to experiment with something like this.

[Frisson]

I voted FOR this proposal on Tally for the reasons outlined below.

@Frisson

I voted FOR - DIP 1.5. The SeedGov team has done an admirable job of administering the delegate incentive program. I’m comfortable with the 1.5 approach which gives reviewers the ability to make a more qualitative assessment of delegate contribution based on public forum comments. The reality is that simply commenting on a forum post does not necessarily create value for the DAO. As a proposal creator/owner, I’ve observed significant differences in the quality of delegate contribution to the proposal process and agree compensation should be adjusted accordingly.

[paulofonseca]

voting For the current onchain proposal because this is one of the most experimental and innovative delegate incentive programs I’ve seen. And I think it’s worth trying it out for 12 months.

[mcfly]

We’re voting FOR this proposal on Tally for the reasons outlined at the Snapshot stage.

@mcfly

We’re voting FOR DIP V1.5. The qualitative assessment tackles spam comments while recognizing valuable off-chain contributions. Tiered compensation creates stronger motivation for high-quality participation. While subjectivity in evaluation is a concern, transparency measures and the 3-month review mitigate this risk. We’d oppose any further inclusion of off-chain metrics like social activities mentioned in some comments - it’s nonsensical, privacy-invasive, and opens the door to even more subjective evaluation. The increased admin budget seems justified given the expanded analysis scope.

[Tekr0x.eth]

Voted FOR: Incentive programs showed that you can get very active and engaging governance in your DAO with programs like this. As a DAO you want the best kind of people making decisions, giving feedback on proposals, attending weekly calls, etc. It takes a lot of time to be active in the governance so incentives like this help bring smart, experienced, and talented people to your DAO. I love to see that my suggestion was accepted. Now delegates will get bonus points (BP) if they attend Report Calls and Open Discussion proposals calls.

[maxlomu]

gm, voted FOR on Tally.

I think the new system is an improvement vs the previous program.
Curious to see how this “professionalization” of the delegates will look like.

I would suggest to keep adjusting the KPIs as the program goes on:

We ultimately need to measure and focus on the delegates’ impact. The risk with the current metrics is that 100 people could blindly sign and comment with chat-GPT without making any real contribution.

[Euphoria]

The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal on Tally.

We believe that these improvements will encourage deeper and more consistent participation from delegates in governance, helping to ensure a more engaged and effective Arbitrum DAO.

Rest our overall thoughts remain the same as expressed in our rationale during the Snapshot voting.

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR DIP V1.5 for this proposal.

We want to mention that our feedback from this comment was heard and implemented, which we appreciate.

The minor changes from v1.1 to v1.5 are welcomed especially the new rubric-based system. This seems well-suited to address the diverse feedback across the DAO and will likely encourage deeper and more consistent participation from delegates in governance.

We would love to see how the upper cap of 50 delegates could be lifted if the $7,000 per delegate budget is not exhausted, and the 51st delegate qualifies for the last tier allowing more delegates to qualify for incentives.

Lastly, we hope that the subjective scoring will become more objective as the program progresses.

[Tally_Support]

Onchain voting for this proposal is ending within 24 hours:
[Vote on Tally: [Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum DAO Delegate Incentive Program](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4/proposal/2433597000864761163)
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact support@tally.xyz

[LevelK]

The LevelK Delegation has cast its onchain vote FOR this proposal. Here is our reasoning:
The Level K Delegation supports their being professional governance. The work involved should be compensated to support fair governance. Thank you to those who spent time drafting and submitting this proposal.